Quantcast
UN Upgrades Palestine to Non-Member Observer State

Forums - Politics Discussion - UN Upgrades Palestine to Non-Member Observer State

Tagged games:

Do you support this move by the UN?

Yes 71 74.74%
 
No 20 21.05%
 
Don't Know / See Results 3 3.16%
 
Total:94
Griffin said:
Rath said:
Player1x3 said:
Rath said:
I don't see a problem with this at all. I mean nearly everyone agrees Palestine should eventually be a state - what is the problem in elevating their status to observer state status in the UN?


It totally ignores Israeli sovereignty over palestinian land?

What sovereignity?

They are internationally recognised as occupied territories - Israel does not have any sovereign rights to them. This is why the building of settlements is so controversial, it is essentially an annexation of land which they do not have sovereignity over.

The UN says alot of things, half the nations voting are basically dictatorships or Jewish hating nations, or vote so they don't upset their now large muslim populations.

Most UN members are democratic. The only ones that straight-up aren't are Cuba, Morocco, Algeria, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Equatorial Guinea, Belarus, the CAR, the Sudan, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Syria, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea

A lot of them are anti-colonial, but that should be obvious because a lot of them are former colonies, who sympathize with Palestine far more than Israel (who represents old colonial oppression and is backed up by the former colonial establishment)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
Rath said:
Player1x3 said:
Rath said:
I don't see a problem with this at all. I mean nearly everyone agrees Palestine should eventually be a state - what is the problem in elevating their status to observer state status in the UN?


It totally ignores Israeli sovereignty over palestinian land?

What sovereignity?

They are internationally recognised as occupied territories - Israel does not have any sovereign rights to them. This is why the building of settlements is so controversial, it is essentially an annexation of land which they do not have sovereignity over.

The historical region of Palestine is internationally recognised as the state of Israel. State of Palestine is not recognosed by UN

Two things. Firstly the state of Israel has never been recognised to cover the entire region. Secondly the state of Palestine is now recognised by the UN - that is exactly what this vote was about.



Griffin said:
Rath said:
Player1x3 said:
Rath said:
I don't see a problem with this at all. I mean nearly everyone agrees Palestine should eventually be a state - what is the problem in elevating their status to observer state status in the UN?


It totally ignores Israeli sovereignty over palestinian land?

What sovereignity?

They are internationally recognised as occupied territories - Israel does not have any sovereign rights to them. This is why the building of settlements is so controversial, it is essentially an annexation of land which they do not have sovereignity over.

The UN says alot of things, half the nations voting are basically dictatorships or Jewish hating nations, or vote so they don't upset their now large muslim populations.

Oh it's true that there are quite a few countries biased against Israel. Doesn't change the fact that Israel does not have sovereignity over that land.



SubiyaCryolite said:

I dont agree with that at all. Does your statement have any basis? I have a hard time believing that rougly 60% of the UN is made up of Dictarships or Muslim sympathisers.

i would be surpised if the number were that low.



Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:
i could call my toaster a state, but that wont make it a state (i dont actually own a toaster; i hate toast)

International recognition is what defines sovereignty, at least in this day and age, and the UN is the only body that can dole that out in any way that has meaning, due to universal UN membership aside from a few quasi-states like Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, Puntland, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Kosovo.


doesnt change the facts on the ground that it isnt and cant even be a state without a peace agreement.  



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:
Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:
i could call my toaster a state, but that wont make it a state (i dont actually own a toaster; i hate toast)

International recognition is what defines sovereignty, at least in this day and age, and the UN is the only body that can dole that out in any way that has meaning, due to universal UN membership aside from a few quasi-states like Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, Puntland, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Kosovo.


doesnt change the facts on the ground that it isnt and cant even be a state without a peace agreement.  

Sure it can. North and South Korea are states without a proper peace agreement. Something similar occurring with India and Pakistan.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SubiyaCryolite said:

I dont agree with that at all. Does your statement have any basis? I have a hard time believing that rougly 60% of the UN is made up of Dictarships or Muslim sympathisers.


Here are a few helpful links, even some of the countries listed as democratic have policies that don't allow freedom of press or other freedoms.  Example: Turkey, which is a member of Nato and a strong ally of the west, this country tends to lock up people for even mentioning the Armenian genocide or if they suspect you of being part of the PKK.  Most of Africa even the democratic countries still arrest/kill people for witchcraft and other laws which we would consider barbaric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House
http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf



Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:
Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:
i could call my toaster a state, but that wont make it a state (i dont actually own a toaster; i hate toast)

International recognition is what defines sovereignty, at least in this day and age, and the UN is the only body that can dole that out in any way that has meaning, due to universal UN membership aside from a few quasi-states like Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, Puntland, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Kosovo.


doesnt change the facts on the ground that it isnt and cant even be a state without a peace agreement.  

Sure it can. North and South Korea are states without a proper peace agreement. Something similar occurring with India and Pakistan.


the peace agreement itself wasnt the point.  it was what goes along with the peace agreement.  it isnt not a state because of a piece of paper, but because it isnt a state.  with everything settled it could be a state.  (those countries you mentioned are wholly different even...nothing alike at all to this matter...makes me wonder...)



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
I don't see a problem with this at all. I mean nearly everyone agrees Palestine should eventually be a state - what is the problem in elevating their status to observer state status in the UN?


A) What's recognized is Fatah.  Not Palestine.  In 2006 Hamas won a majority of seats and shoud of taken control over the Palestinian government.   Even in the recent elections, Fatah struggled despite Hamas boycotting said elections.   Does it really make sense to recognize a government the people haven't chosen?

B) The above, except backwords...  Fatah is unpopuar right now.  As it fades further eventually they may need to let Hamas control Palestine.  Either that or to prevent it... a full out western dictatator.  So it either allows Palestines recognized government to be terrorists.  Or to prevent this forces a dictator on the scene.  Much eaiser to deal with Hamas while they're official.

C)  It's not a state.  Everyone agrees it should be a state... at the same time... it's not.  I mean hell.  There are states that currently exist that don't have UN observer status yet are far more deserving.

Like say Taiwan.  


A) It's the Palestinian Authority which has been recognised. Which Fatah controls through rather dubious means. Nonetheless the distinction between party and state still exists.

B) So you're saying that we should only allow states that we like to exist?

C) I agree Taiwan is even more deserving. That doesn't make Palestine undeserving. Palestine is, in my opinion, very much an occupied state.

A)  We'll see what happens if Fatah ever loses control.

B) No.  Observer status makes it far more unlikely taht the Palestinians end up with a state they want.   Israel has many more excuses to NOT negotaite with a UN observer status Hamas, then a "terrorist" state hamas... or even a situation where they negoatie with a "Puppet" official government while hamas pulls the strings.  Once they get UN  observer status that's near impossible.

While it increases the chances of a Western puppet.  Or more accurately a puppety the west is willing to deal with.  Less likely now then 2-3 years ago but still a worry.

C) Except... again, it's not a state.... and something like this should have set guidelines.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
Kasz216 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Kasz216 said:
maximrace said:
[...]

That's... not remotely what happened... that's silly.  If anyone needs a history lesson it's  you.

First off... if anybody took the Palestinian's land it was the UK.  Who took it from the Ottomans... who took it from the Malmulak Egptians (non arabs), who took it from the Kurds, who i beleive took it from the Crusaders?

Either way, the UK negotiated with the Palestinian leadership of the time to let Jewish people move in, in exchange for well... development.  Since the Jewish people moving in were rich, were paying for the land they settled in and were building up the local economy.

The arabs backtracked on the deal, largely because the UK screwed the arabs.

See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement

Then the UK, taking soverignty from the Palestinians allowed Jewish people to BUY land from the Palestinians.  Not steal it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

UN plan made, Palestinians disagreed, wars happened, the arabs lost and lost a lot of land that way... and here we are.0

 

If you blame anybody.  You don't blame the Jews.  You blame the UK and the greedy palestinian elite, who sold land to make a quick buck. (Many of which are major figures or the fathers of major figures in Palestine.)  All the jews did was buy unincorporated land that people were willing to sell to them after the foreign purchase laws were removed.

This doesn't paint a full picture of history. You have to account for the Zionist movement, for the civil war in 1947-1948, and for the war in 1948 (and resulting exodus). It's not true that Arabs living in what is now Israel/Palestine suffered only because of British mandatory powers, and their own corrupt leadership.

Not by a long shot.

The 1947-1948 war was started by the same aforementioned corrupt arab leadership.

While the Zionist movement... was mostly them purchasing land, and lobbying for the ability to purchase land and immigrate there.

So... I'm not understanding your points here.

My point is that Zionism wasn't entirely non-violent, that some Jewish settlers and militiamen carried out awful things during that war -- Deir Yassin being the most infamous but hardly the only -- and that Israel, after declaring its independence, forcibly evicted Arabs from their homes, bulldozed entire neighborhoods, and made a conscious effort to "cleanse" Palestine/Israel of ethnic Arabs.

That's fair enough, but again... doesn't seem relative... because it was relativly small... again, they are by far the least of the three you'd blame.  Only blamed because they're the ones still there.  (Well and the Palestinian leadership, but they're "working for Palestine")  Though not really since they would rather sit in ther nice conditions while the average Palestinian suffers, and does nothing to actually prepare the Palestinians for peace and get an actual believable deal... because they know in a stable Palestine without the legitamizaton that comes from being what is recognized diplomatically other groups would soon replace them.